Love Lost: Obama’s Personal Assistant Reggie Love Quitting
- Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:26am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
(Photo: AP)
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama’s personal assistant is leaving the White House.
Reggie Love, the former Duke basketball player who has been a constant presence by Obama’s side since the 2008 presidential campaign, will depart the White House by the end of the year, a person familiar with his decision said.
Love, 30, is the latest in a string of longtime Obama aides to leave the White House this year, including senior adviser David Axelrod, press secretary Robert Gibbs, deputy press secretary Bill Burton and deputy communications director Jen Psaki. All were part of Obama’s team since at least since the 2008 race.
But it is Love who has had perhaps the most unique access to the president.
As Obama’s personal assistant – a job that‘s also known as the president’s “body man” – since the beginning of the administration, Love has been a near-constant presence by Obama’s side, both at the White House and in travels around and outside the United States.
Love first started working for Obama in his Senate office, and was promoted to personal assistant during the presidential campaign.
His job requirements have included everything from carrying copies of the president’s speeches, his iPod, and a steady supply of gum, newspapers and aspirin, to taking photos for audience members as they shook the president’s hand. Wherever the president goes, Love has rarely been more than a few steps behind.
“I have an iReggie, who has my books, my newspapers, my music, all in one place,” Obama said in an interview last year.
The president also credited Love for expanding his musical repertoire, introducing him to artists like Nas and Lil Wayne. Love has been a frequent teammate on the court for the sports-obsessed president. During the 2008 campaign, Obama and Love started a tradition of playing basketball on the day of every primary or caucus.
Love’s immediate plans upon leaving the White House were unclear. The source was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Love’s departure was first reported by The Washington Post.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 705 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 545 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 364 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 359 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 358 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 358 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 364 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 278 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 149 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 358 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (117)
paleoman
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 12:30pmIts better to have loved & lost than to never have loved at all. Now where did I put them cigarettes.
Report Post »Mike777
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 12:42pmlol
Report Post »freedomofspeech
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 3:47pmoh freaking funny. hahahaha
Report Post »motonutt
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 7:31pmI Love the one giving those special POTUS massages with a “happy” ending after midnight basketball and after Moochele is already in bed asleep?
Report Post »motonutt
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 8:22pmTheir is no doubt this has something to do with obamas homosexual history and the upcoming election…or Michele has something to do with it, like she is fed up with the in your face gay body man being with her husband 24/7 You can’t blame her for that, it would be a little embaracing..I just wonder who his new “body man” will be. I’d bet whom ever it is will be kept far in the background.
This puts a whole new light on obama running to Chicago every time Michele leaves on one of her extravagant vacations….Rahm, Love, & POTUS heading down to the bath house….unreal.
Report Post »quickstudy
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 12:28pmI bet Obama is sweating if it was a Love hate relationship. I bet Love needs the time off to write his book… to come out just after the 2012 election no doubt.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 2:27pmIf he lives that long, Obama’s other lovers have a way of turning up dead.
Report Post »Detroit paperboy
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 2:42pmObamas gay lovers keep turning up dead, the mother of one has been speaking out, google it…. I give this guy six months on the endangered species list….. We know nothing about this president, thanks to a complicit, marxist media, unreal….
carbonyes
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 2:43pmMaybe Love could be persuaded to come out with “his” book with no holds barred before the 2012 election. I’m sure it will be a best seller and maybe even a Number 1, if he puts some really juicy stuff in it before they decide to dispatch him, kinda like what happen to Vince Foster by the Clintonistas.
Report Post »Welcome Black Carter
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 9:08pm“There is no doubt this has something to do with obamas homosexual history and the upcoming election…”
Moochele or Love… tough choice…
Report Post »clockwatcher
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 12:27pmEveryon is bailing to find a new job because in 360 days the black jimmy carter is gone.
Report Post »PATRIOTGRUNT
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 12:56pm@ CLOCKWATCHER : Get it straight 1 / 2 Black Jima Carta.
Report Post »mtnclimberjim
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 1:02pmNow don’t call a half black man black. That might be considered racist. I wonder if it bothers a half white man to be called black. Think it’s confusing?
Report Post »carbonyes
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 3:02pmIf the black half is Half Jimma Carta, what on God’s green earth is the white half? No‘ I don’t think it’s Slick Willy. The white half ain’t that smooth and slippery. Obama’s white half zigs when it should have zagged. George Soros’s ba$tard son? No, aint that smart! Not that Soros is smart, but he covers his tracks a little better than the Bamster. So what is the answer to the $64,000.00 question? No its not the Messiah, although at times Barack Hussein Obama considers himself The One.On his worst day, if He ever had one, Jesus was a million times better than the Huckster on his best day, if he ever had one. No the white half of Barack Hussein Obama is simply that – Barack Hussein Obama, a pitiful sorry sad sack that the elitist portrayed and disguised as the savior of the world and now we find out that he’s just an average Joe, not to disparage Joe the Plumber, who couldn’t pour pi$$ out of a boot if the directions were on the heel, and he wound up being President. Wonders will never cease.
Report Post »ColoradoMaverick
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 12:21pmSounds like he had a real important job. I wonder how much he was paid? Did his duties include wiping his butt too?
Report Post »biohazard23
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 12:31pm“His job requirements have included everything from carrying copies of the president’s speeches, his iPod, and a steady supply of gum, newspapers and aspirin…”
OK, I thought TOTUS told his what to say. WTH would Lovey Boy need to carry dear Leader’s speeches? Unless they were really love letters….. Ewwwww!!!
In other news, Moochelle is dancing a jig now that her man’s main squeeze will be performing his, uh, “duties” elsewhere, thus permitting her to resume her position as HBIC (Head B**** In Charge).
Report Post »smokie
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 12:56pmLove? Sounds like his name should be Jeeves. Poor President Wooster will have to screw up everyone’s life on his lonesome, now.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 1:33pmYea, real important…”Hey Love, run get me a carton of Kools.”
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 1:36pmI wonder if he carried an umbrella to keep Barry shaded from the sun, like that doofus PDiddy has.
Report Post »georgeisn6
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 12:19pm“No love lost” Last chance for the rats to jump overbord befor the leaking rotten communist hull takes them down with it.
Report Post »Sexyblondpatriot
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 12:16pmEveryone is jumping ship because it’s sinking. Now the elite are trying to push Cain off on us so they can have another puppet the minorities will blindly vote for. I mean the guy worked for the Federal Reserve, if that isn‘t ringing alarm bells I don’t know what will. RON PAUL 2012!
Report Post »TEA4Me
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 1:13pmHe was a civilian board memeber of the Fed. You should prepare to vote for someone other than Ron Paul.
And if you vote for RP as a 3rd Party candidate, which is as good as a vote for Obama, or you don’t vote at all, you are certainly no Patriot…
Report Post »mlcblog
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 2:51amI agree with Tea4Me. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama.
Report Post »Ghandi was a Republican
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 12:10pmFalse: Gibbs and axelrod have gone nowhere. They are in the shadows dancing with the czars! They are in no different position than they have been, meeting with Soros’ and Union cronies under the radar, secret from whitehouse logs across the street and elsewhere in their faux oval offices..
Report Post »We know these things from the commonality of alinsky tactics throughout the World. And it ain’t just those two!
Chet Hempstead
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 5:23pmThat’s not how you spell Gandhi.
Report Post »EqualJustice
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 7:59pmAxelrod is in charge of Obama’s RE-ELECTION campaign.. hence his little lady friend from next door showing up to accuse Cain?
Report Post »garyM
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 12:07pmAll these people are just getting ready to get aboard the Hillary train, same train, same direction, you won’t be able to tell the difference! I knew as soon as Hillary said absolutely no chance that she would run, that she was running! Hey the liberals love it when their people lie!
Report Post »Tagudinian
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 12:00pmToo bad Obama’s Man Friday is leaving him. Who can stand all that BS and lies anyway? And to be the lackey of this inept Kenyan impostor who calls himself POTUS is akin to being a wad of Charmin used to wipe Obama’s soiled anus.
Report Post »CONSERVATIVE1
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:59amI’ll bet Moochelle is now happy the competition is leaving….
Report Post »65Mustang
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:52amThey can always keep in touch with each other at the Man’s Club in Chicago.
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 12:09pmSo glad YOU said it, someone had to! LOL
Report Post »Sexyblondpatriot
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 12:09pmlmfao……I read up on that and was not surprised that Obummer was an undercover brother……
Report Post »Politikellyincorrect
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 12:23pmLOL, I was thinking the exact same thing.
Report Post »They have too much “love” on one another for Love to stray very far… Unless he has himself a Vince Foster accident.
Copper Catfish
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:52amIs Soros paying all these people to leave?
Report Post »capecodsully
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:49amFrom Love boat to sinking ship. Give the guy credit, listening to all that BS and lies does wear on you after awhile.
Report Post »pbrenda51
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:55amAre you kidding? He is probably going to get a very high up position somewhere, making lots of money, perhaps with one of soros organizations……these people have no integrity or conscience….they are Progressives….’nuff said
Report Post »barber2
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 12:45pmPRB: Agree. Any openings at the head of one of the zillions of Soros-funded organizations ? That‘s proably why they won’t release Love’s next “position !”
Report Post »Disc_Coastie
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:48amWhat? …Huh? Did the band stop playing….?? Where are the lifeboats? Damn the Torpedos! Full Speed Ahead! I”m their leader! Which way did they go??
Progressives are Cancer, 2012 continues the Cure!
Report Post »db321
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:56amYea – what this guy says – I couldn’t put it any better.
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:45amI guess O will be getting his hummers from someone else.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 1:38pmYou made me laugh Anon! :-)
Report Post »hi
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:44amThere is innuendo that Reggie is Obama’s gay lover.
Report Post »Marrabella
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 12:03pmGoogle the Kansas Citian and Obama …..there is now a report Obama was sued multiple times for sexual harassment by men. True story. Just breaking.
Report Post »Wonder why Glenn isn’t covering it.
Sheree43
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 12:20pm……well isn’t he? …….
Report Post »CCHMoore
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 12:34pmOn the down low ;O
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 1:40pmYea, Obama dumped him for Carney.
Report Post »Jeff1000
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:42amMan the life boats hahaha.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:46amAnother rat jumping ship!
TEA!
Report Post »ozchambers
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:41amI bet the Plantation Owner in Chief is ticked about THIS runaway.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:39amOh… Love has some assignment… and you know it!
Report Post »ares338
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:38amThe rats are deserting the sinking ship.
Report Post »Annie Fields
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:38amLover’s quarrel ;(
Report Post »On The Bayou
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:36amThey`re dropping like flys from this guy.
Report Post »smokie
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 1:04pmIf they were utilizing fly behavior, they’d be sticking to Obamas face like glue.
Report Post »Highland
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:35amAnd by “personal assistant” and “body man,” we mean …
Report Post »steveh931
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:35amI’d like to think he grew a conscience, but I doubt it. More like taking the campaign to the road.
Report Post »On The Bayou
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:47amI was hoping the same thing but Steve H 931 you are probably right.
Report Post »ENTITLEMENTSBLOW
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:32amProbably a good career move. Working for Obama would not look could on a future resume!
Report Post »ENTITLEMENTSBLOW
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:37amGood
Report Post »hud
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:40amGet while the gettin’ is good.
Report Post »obamabirthcertificate.net
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:56amSheriff Arpaio is closing in. The rats are jumping ship.
Obama’s birth certificate contains many anomalies justifying further investigation by law enforcement, as does his social security number. Both are alleged to be fraudulent by numerous experts. However even if the alleged fraud had gone unnoticed and it’s assumed he was born in HI, Obama is still not Constitutionally eligible.
Article 2, Section 1, requires the President to be a natural born citizen. This involves two equally important prerequisites. The first is being born in the USA or sovereign US jurisdiction. The second is being born to US citizen parents (plural). Both prerequisites must be satisfied. Obama absolutely failed to meet one prerequisite at birth and maybe both. He does not have TWO US citizen parents! Therefore he is not eligible.[1]
Patriots love the truth! Progressive socialist democrats… not so much.
1. Well researched and properly referenced explanations of both prerequisites: http://www.obamabirthcertificate.net
Report Post »barber2
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 12:43pmBIRTHCERT: Am still wondering why the fact that Occidental College released the information that a Barry Soetoro received “ financial aid as a student from Indonesia” hasn’t raised any concerns. What gives with this info ?
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 5:23pmobamabirthcertificate.net
Report Post »Who says that being the child of two citizens is a requirement for establishing natural born citizenship? Not the Constitution, not any law or act of Congress, and definitely not the Supreme Court! When they finally ruled on the issue back in 1898, they said just the opposite – it doesn’t matter who your parents are as long as you‘re born here. I can’t see that any of the infamous crackpots you reprint on your website have any source for this strange delusion other than their deliberate misinterpretation of an irrelevant Supreme Court decision that both predates their 1898 ruling, and clearly states that it is not setting a precedent or establishing a complete and exclusive definition of natural born citizenship.
obamabirthcertificate.net
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 7:41pm@ Chet Hempstead
Aka: Chester the Molester of truth.
Motto: “The Constitution, don’t examine it too closely.”
Alinsky radicals avidly avoid, disavow and contradict facts in an attempt to obfuscate truth and disguise subversion.
In the absence of any facts supporting your opinions, and in light of further failings such as an insufferable lack of intellectual integrity and irrational refusal to acknowledge facts presented by others, you’ve long ago been dismissed you as a troll. There is no value in any discourse with you. Your comments are worthless and unwelcome, cease and desist from stalking my posts.
Dr. Savage, Ph.D., was certainly right when he wrote:
“Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”
Lamentably truth rarely accompanies liberal political bias. As a courtesy to those sympathetic to the need to diffuse liberal attacks, first let me say that their attacks serve as a complimentary gauge of one’s effectiveness in thwarting the anti-American intentions of progressive socialist democrats.
Second, your purposefully vague replies, habitually consisting of out of context incorrect conjecture lacking any properly cited reference to original research or supporting source material, hardly merits one restating the facts.[1]
1. How to quickly understand Obama’s ineligibility http://www.ObamaBirthCertificate.net
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 9:18pmYou say that my replies are vague and filled with conjecture, but I have the Supreme Court’s decision on Song Kim Ark v US and US Code Title 8 Chapter 12 Subchapter III Part I 1401 defining Nationals and Citizens of the United States at birth to demonstrate that the current legal standard for natural born citizenship is not what you claim it should be. You have never shown the existence of any law or court decision backing up your contention that some citizens born in this country are not natural born citizens, or that the phrase natural born citizen has ever meant anything other than a citizen by birth, and you never will, because there is no such thing.
Report Post »obamabirthcertificate.net
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 10:07pm@ Chet Hempstead
Amendment 14, 1866. Affects only citizenship. Not Art. 2, Sec. 1, natural born citizen: one US born of US citizen parents.[1]
Rep. John Bingham, framer of 14th Amendment 3/9/1866, “… declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents (plural) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
Supreme Court, Minor v. Happersett, 1874. “The Court held that Minor was a member of the “class” of persons who were natural born citizens. They defined this class as those born in the US to “parents” (plural) who were citizens.” – Leo Donofrio, JD.
U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 1898. Consistent with Minor v. Happersett. The court purposefully held that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, as opposed to a natural born citizen. “Since Wong Kim Ark didn’t fit into the class of natural-born citizens as defined by Minor, the Court looked to the 14th Amendment to grant him US citizenship.” – Donofrio, JD.
“In order to gain this special status of “natural born” Citizen, one must satisfy the American common law definition of a “natural born” Citizen handed down to us since the Founding and confirmed in both Minor and Wong Kim Ark.” – Mario Apuzzo, JD.
Sen. Res. 511 4/3/08. “… born to American citizens … .”
1. http://www.ObamaBirthCertificate.net
Report Post »obamabirthcertificate.net
Posted on November 10, 2011 at 11:16pmOops, posted wrong link to another section I was reading. Yes, I’m a bit bored. Anyway, here is the correct link if you wish to prove for yourself that Chet Hempstead is well, for lack of a better way to put it, lying to you.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_08_00001401—-000-.html
Blaze readers, if you’re at all interested in what the troll has posted is true or not, which I rather doubt, just go to that Cornell Law link and do a “find” search for “natural born citizen” (without quotation marks) and you will see that natural born citizen is not listed even once, which is why you should ignore Chet Hempstead. Too bad he seems to thrive on being proven wrong. One would have thought that after a number of PMITA embarrassments, he would learn his lesson and stop stalking my comments like some weird demented creep.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 12:32amTitle 8 uses the phrase Citizens at birth, which all literate English-speaking people recognize as synonymous with natural born citizens. It can define that term without superceding the Constitution because there is no definition in the Constitution. Don’t tell me what US v Wong Kim Ark says, I’ve read it while you obviously haven’t. It refers to Minor v Happersett only to quote it as saying that the definition of natural born citizen was not a settled issue and they were not ruling on it because it was outside the scope of the case. Since Wong Kim Ark’s claim of citizenship was based on birth rather than naturalization, ruling him a citizen is the same as ruling him a natural born citizen. The Court based its ruling on the British law at the time of our founding, which the founding fathers would have been familiar with, and which they would have written a law to change had that been their intention.
“aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject …
Report Post »III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
NOTAMUSHROOM
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:40am@Chet
“the current legal standard”
Therein lies the problem with our legal system. Continually citing and building upon bad judicial decisions is, well, just stupid. If medicine were run this way we’d still be bleeding the demons out of people only with much greater efficiency.
Report Post »obamabirthcertificate.net
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 10:55am@ NOTAMUSHROOM
The problem generally stems from the 17th amendment, which invited wholesale corruption. Corrupt politicians are elected who then place activist judges on the bench who in turn are willing to deviate from the Constitutional standards and are rarely held accountable for their malfeasance.
Report Post »obamabirthcertificate.net
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 11:05am@ C Hempstead
No, “Citizens at birth” isn’t synonymous with natural born citizens. You cite nothing stating it is.
NO, US Code doesn’t supersede Constitution.
Too late, I already have told you what US v Wong Kim Ark says. You cite no refuting references, so I suggest you attend law school and present your argument to those attorneys directly.
You incorrectly claim that “The Court based its ruling on the British law at the time of our founding, which the founding fathers would have been familiar with, and which they would have written a law to change had that been their intention.”
Wrong. The American Revolution enabled the establishment American law as enshrined in the Constitution
You failed to cite the source of what you plagiarized. Your pilfering is unworthy of further reply, however be advised that a natural-born subject and a natural born citizen are not the same.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 2:29pmBlack’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.”
Citizens at birth is synonymous with natural born citizens. You cite nothing stating it isn’t.
I did not say that the US Code supersedes the Constitution. I said that it can define standards for natural born citizenship without superseding the Constitution because there is no definition in the Constitution.
The American Revolution did enable the establishment American law, however, as there never was any new law changing the definition of natural born citizenship, the Court quite reasonably did turn to British law to define a term used in, but not defined in, the Constitution.
What do you think I plagiarized? The quoted material was from the Supreme Court’s decision on US v Wong Kim Ark, the one you keep saying has nothing to do with natural born citizenship.
Report Post »obamabirthcertificate.net
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 1:36pm@CH
Why cite 9th ed? If, NBC is “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government,” (correct but incomplete) then, any slave “born within the jurisdiction” of US is NBC & eligible for POTUS prior to 14th Amendment. Your logic yields error, argument fatally flawed.
Amendment 14 provided emancipated slaves who, without a US citizen parent even if born on US soil, had no other means of acquiring citizenship.
Art. 2, Sec. 1, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible … .”
Removing “natural born” reduces sentence to nonsense: “No person except a ”Citizen”, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible …”
Exempting a “citizen” from being a “NBC” proves they aren’t equal, or no exemption was needed. Being not less than nor equal, a NBC must be more than the minimum requisite for citizenship then, which was US birth to a US citizen parent. Only US birth to US citizen parents (plural) is greater, thus defining a natural born citizen!
Senate website: Art. 2, Sec. 1, “This clause requires … and a natural-born citizen. This last requirement raises the question of whether someone born to American parents outside of the United States would be eligible to hold the office.” Parents is plural.
PS Support your own contentions and cite quotes.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 3:02pmI cite the ninth edition because I’m talking about what the law is, not what it could have been if the Supreme Court had never settled this issue. Nobody is talking about removing “natural born” from Aricle 2. You continue to ignore the actual difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen, natural born excludes naturalized citizens, those born in other countries.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 5:36pmSenate website: Art. 2, Sec. 1, “This clause requires … and a natural-born citizen. This last requirement raises the question of whether someone born to American parents outside of the United States would be eligible to hold the office.” Parents is plural.
Well, gee, it doesn’t say that there is any doubt of the eligibility of anyone born IN this country does it? That must have been what you were looking for when you went there, though I don’t know why. If you have suddenly started recognizing the authority of Congress, that would mean that their acceptance of President Obama’s eligibility ought to count for something.
Report Post »obamabirthcertificate.net
Posted on November 13, 2011 at 2:36am@CH
Senate site: NBC = US born of citizen parents! 2 not 1. Location ambiguity stems from repealed 1790 law.
Congress: NBC requires 2 citizen parents.
1st Congress; 3/26/1790, Ses II, Chap. 3, Sec I, 104, An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization: “… And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, …”
1795, Repealed & replaced 1790 law. Among changes: “shall be considered as natural born citizens” corrected to, “shall be considered as citizens.”
U.S. Congress, T3rd Congress; 1/29/1795, Sess. II, Chap. 19, 20; 1 stat 414, An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject: “… and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, …”[1]
The corrected 1795 replacement no longer says children of US citizens, “born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States,” are NBC!
NBC not naturalized nor equal to citizen, as I stated. Don’t ignore last post proving NBC is defined in Constitution!
Black’s 6th “…born of citizens…” Plural!
1. http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigration/1%20stat%20414.pdf
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on November 13, 2011 at 2:43amAll of that is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with people born IN this country.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on November 13, 2011 at 3:01amYou never proved that natural born citizen is defined in the Constitution, because it isn’t. Nobody ever claimed that there was no difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. Proving that there must be a difference, which nobody ever denied, does not prove that there is any difference other than the exclusion of naturalized citizens, those who are born in other countries and become citizens later in life.
Report Post »obamabirthcertificate.net
Posted on November 20, 2011 at 10:35pm@CH
You initially asked,”Who says that being the child of two citizens is a requirement for establishing natural born citizenship?” and asserted “Not the Constitution, not any law or act of Congress, and definitely not the Supreme Court!”
As I’ve demonstrated, a careful logical reading of Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution, acts of 1st and 3rd Congress, the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court, all confirm that a natural born citizen is one born within U.S. jurisdiction of TWO U.S. citizen parents (plural).
You stated, “You never proved that natural born citizen is defined in the Constitution, because it isn’t.”
Actually, the meaning is obvious. Ignoring the facts, you contend that a natural born citizen is not defined so it’s meaning is unknown. The Founders weren’t writing a dictionary. The words: definition, defined, mean or meaning, aren’t in the Constitution. By your skewed rational, unless every term in the constitution is defined, it’s indecipherable, unknowable and worthless.
Nor can you claim a natural born citizen is undefined elsewhere. It‘s in Black’s, though equivocating and incomplete necessitating numerous revisions, it consistently excludes a naturalized citizen from being a natural born citizen.
Proving there is a difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen, beyond excluding naturalized citizenship, proves Obama is an ineligible usurper!
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on November 21, 2011 at 2:45amI could compose a response explaining why you’re still wrong, but there’s no reason to. This story disappeared off the front page of the Blaze over a week ago, mending the likelihood that your nonsense would be read and mistaken for truth by anyone who doesn’t know any better. The only reason to continue arguing here would be if I cared what you think, which I don’t. But, if you’ve just always wanted to get the last word in an argument, this is your big chance. You can post one more comment lying and claiming that I chickened out of arguing with you and pretending that you won a debate through the intellectual superiority of your arguments. You can insult me all you like and I won’t bother to reply. Why should I? Nobody will ever read it, but if it makes you feel better, go to town.
Report Post »obamabirthcertificate.net
Posted on November 21, 2011 at 1:36pm@CH
Despite being accorded ample opportunity, true to form and contrary to your pretentious delusions, you have time and time again failed to refute the facts I’ve generously shared for your edification, each a well researched, properly referenced pearl of wisdom presented in the correct context of accurate American history.
As a fitting tribute to your ethically bereft inept attempts at Alinsky sedition by obfuscation, ridicule and disregarding truth, be assured that any refuge from the burning annihilation brought by the dawning onslaught of enlightening truth, as this article fades from the front page prominence at TheBlaze, will bring you little solace or lasting comfort.
Continue stalking my comments at your own peril. Your bizarre baseless accusations and infamous failings as the worlds worst informed Obot may serve a far greater purpose than you ever imagined. Be warned that you risk being immortally eviscerated in literature, every lie, every deceitful character flaw, every inept act of Alinsky sedition, will follow you naked for eternity.
You have been weighed, measured, and found wanting. In what world could you possibly justify such deceit? Be gone, foul Obot. Your very name screams ignorance and treason.
Report Post »